Under McIntrye's careful analysis, some of the climate reconstructions don't extend back fully to 1,000 years and some peter out more recently for lack data. And all have been recalibrated to spend a bit more time above zero. But taken individually or together, they all seem to suggest exactly what the much-debated Mann hockey stick suggested, lo those many Congressional hearings ago: that we are currently enjoying (or enduring) the hottest period on earth in the last 1,000 years.

Previous Comments

As always thanks for the good work Richard. Earlier today I had a blogger confront me with the information from this piece by Steve McIntyre: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1456 (the rest of this post is an altered version of my response there)

Steve was showing how incompetent the NOAA is because they often don't post the minimums for Dulan weather station is China. Now you would assume that if the NOAA is not posting the data it is because it is not being reported.

But Steve found that the maximums, minimums and the temperature 8 times a day is reported by weather underground. That sure does make the NOAA look incompetent.

But wait a second, in researching at the weather underground I turned up that the site most likely isn't always reporting the weather for Dulan, it is predicting the weather. It says: They take information put out from the AVN model of the “U.S. National Weather Service's National Center for Environmental Prediction” and “comes up with” forecasts for 6000 international cities.

Then it says and I quote: “The forecasts do reasonably well for a large number of locations, but do poorly in some locations, particularly mountainous areas. We are developing new software enable us to improve these forecasts in the near future.” (Dulan, by the way is in Qinghai which is within the Tangula and Kunlun mountain ranges and on the border of Tibet.

Isn’t it isolated mountainous regions exactly where weather underground said that their predictions were poorest? Sure was. That can be found here: http://wiki.wunderground.com/index.php/FAQ_-_Sources I can't guarentee that Mr. McIntyre is wrong, but to me it sure seems that way.

Richard, I believe you are misinterpreting the graphs when you state “we are currently enjoying (or enduring) the hottest period on earth in the last 1,000 years.”

That is specifically what the NAS hearings last year debunked. The level of certainty in the temperature data drops dramatically after going back 400 years.

The second point is that most of the temperature reconstructions use the same proxy data for the distant past, meaning that if the level of confidence in this data is not high, the high number of graphs showing similar trends does not constitute a strengthening of the claim that this is “the hottest period on earth in the last 1,000 years”, as most of the reconstructions rely on the same proxy data. Regards,

Complete and utter BS, Paul! The NAS hearings said MBH’s graph showing current temperatures being the warmest for over 1000 years as plausible at best. THEYNEVERDEBUNKEDTHEHOCKEYSTICK!!! Get that through your thick skull!

From the NAS report:

“This report concludes that large-scale surface temperature reconstructions are important tools in our understanding of global climate change that allows us to say, with a high level of confidence, that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600, although available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900.” http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html

As I stated, the NAS did “debunk” the unfounded claims made by many about Mann’s temperature reconstruction.

What was debunked Stephen, was scientists running around stating that “the last 1000 years are the warmest on record” without adding the caveat, that this is, at best, “plausible” and that “less confidence” must, at present, be attached to their claim.

That’s not what I meant. Paul is paying no attention to what the NAS (let alone the IPCC) has concluded. His ideological idiocy prevents him from actually comprehending what was actually written. You also seem to be suffering from the effects of ideological blinders.

Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.

And the part Steve M keeps forgetting to mention is this part:

Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence.

The reconstruction produced by Dr. Mann and his colleagues was just one step in a long process of research, and it is not (as sometimes presented) a clinching argument for anthropogenic global warming, but rather one of many independent lines of research on global climate change.

Geoff quotes:
==”Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities.”==

That’s old news Geoff and irrelevant to this thread.

What is not verified beyond being “plausible” is that it is warmer now then at any time in the last 1000 years.

That it is warmer now then at any time in the last 400 years is “probable”.

Meaning, the 1000 year claim is not fully supported by the science at present. Regards,

“According to the statements in the press conference, they chose ‘plausible’ becuase they didn’t want to quantify likelihood a la IPCC, but I would read it as equivalent to ‘likely’, which is of course what MBH said all along”

“M&M” don’t have their “OWN graph.” M&M’s works were a critique of MBH98. The spaghetti graph referred to on Climate Audit (which is McIntyre’s website, not “M&M’s”)is a replication of a graph published in the New Scientist (re-centered as a correction to the original) as is not their “OWN graph.”
Of course, if you want to suggest the other reconstructions, along with M&M’s critique, “show REPLICABILITY works rather well,” then it sounds like you’re admitting these other reconstructions are also statistically worthless. If you’re going to use them as a leg to stand on, you’d better show they’re a vast improvement on MBH98 (which includes, for starters, not including any bristlecone pine series). You’d also better show they’ve adequately addressed the “divergence problem.”

Yeah Yeah Mike I got it. Got Irony? See the amazing coincidence in rising temperatures during the same timeframe? How about natural variability? Science has handled all the issues rather well, regardless of how far McIntyre thinks he can move the goalposts.

“Irony” would be McIntyre doing his own reconstruction and getting a hockey stick, not simply re-centering an improperly centered series of graphs done by others.
As far as the other reconstructions go, let’s wait and see. Mann’s hockey stick might just be the lemon of the bunch, or maybe the entire model line will get recalled.
How exactly have these reconstructions handled the divergence problem? Many in science seems to think this issue needs some “handling.”
The IPCC also said the onset of glacial retreat in the 19th century conflicts with most of the temperature reconstructions, along with the infallible surface record itself. How exactly do you explain away this “amazing coincidence?” Did the glaciers not get the memo? So science, at least represented by the IPCC, is still doing some head-scratching.
And all that aside: assuming the proxy data has a good degree of accuracy in the first place - do you honestly think we have an extensive enough spatial coverage of the globe to come up with an accurate representation of distant past northern hemisphere (let alone global) temperatures?
Of course, none of this means there’s not a human component to 20th century global warming (have to throw that in there so that I don’t get the rotten vegetable and “Denialist!” cry from the crowd), or that, as the IPCC said (paraphrasing), “it’s likely that most, if not all, of the warming of the latter half of the 20th century is due to manmade emissions of GHG’s, etc. I think you’ll find Steve McIntyre would say the same thing.
But sheesh, is McIntyre correct or not in pointing-out the conclusion on top of the graph is untrue? Do “all” these reconstructions “suggest” current temps are higher than any point in the past 1,000 yrs, as the heading says? Oerlemans only goes back to 1600, Huang only to 1500, Briffa only to 1402, and Hegerl only to 1251. These stop from a few hundred to several years short of 1,000 yrs of coverage. Furthermore, the grey line (Moberg or Juckes) clearly shows two periods of temperatures higher than the present.
I’m not asking you to throw away all you know and believe about global warming, the hockey stick, or whatever. Just ask yourself if the headling to the chart is right or wrong, if the centering is right or wrong, and if it’s worth a brief blog entry by McIntyre to point it out. Then ask yourself if it’s worth another blog entry to point out McIntyre’s blog, then ask yourself if it’s worth it for us to even have to debate this silliness.
The centering was wrong. The conclusion in the heading is clearly wrong. McIntyre pointed it out, and it’s pretty easy to notice. So what’s all the excitement here over it, trying to spin things as much as possible?

This guy seriously has his with his seriously wedged up his ass. He is hanging on to his one study and will do anything to fulfill his fanstasy that he is right and everyone else is wrong.
If he has a point, publish it in a peer reviewed journal, not on climate audit.
Move on, get over yourself, global warming is real and you just stuck your foot in your mouth.

To be nice about it and correct some of your misunderstadings/misrepresentations:
McIntyre did publish his points concerning MBH98 (the substantial ones were agreed with by the NAS) and forced MBH to issue a correction of sorts. I agree with you that he should seek to publish more of his findings rather than just use his website. Many of his points, of course, are not publication-type commentary (such as that which is referenced on this blog here).
McIntyre started Climate Audit in large part to have a regular voice to defend against all the attacks that started against him when the issues with MBH surfaced.
McIntyre rarely posts about MBH98, or even Mann himself, anymore.
Additionally, McIntyre is not a global warming “denialist” and has admitted he thinks there is a man-made effect on climate any number of times.

McIntyre, McKitrick and let’s throw in Michaels are the three “statisticeers”. Their abuse and ignorance of basic science, maths and statistics would be laughable if it wasn’t for the fact that many equally ignorant people cast them up on a pedistal of everything that they claim is wrong with climate science.

Other examples of their stupidity include the insertion of “zero” into cells which had no data when using simple spreadsheet calculations. They also do not understand the difference between degrees “Celsius” and degrees “Kelvin”.

Their attempts at “auditing” scientific papers are the biggest joke in the AGW deniers arsenal of dodgy data.

Anyone who visits “climate fraudit” on a regular basis should have frequent brain scans since reading that drivel has been shown to cause neuronal damage (just check with the authors above).

Once again you are showing your ignorance of how science works. The vast majority of papers published in the scientific literature are “audited”. Peer review is better than M&M’s “audit” since most reviewers at least know what they are talking about.

And please stop talking about papers and reports that you have not read or do not understand. It gets very boring when people have to keep pointing out to you that you are completely wrong once again. Is it a deficiency in your English comprehension skills, a total ignorance of science or just bloody mindedness that makes you utter such nonsense?

Oh I’ve read many of the papers Ian. And far too many scientists are making claims that their research does not support. If scientists want to play politician, we will give them a very rough ride.

Obviously, Mann’s Hockey Stick was not properly audited, or it’s flaws and weaknesses would have been discovered well before the NAS hearings. The “warmest in a thousand years” claim can no longer be stated as “fact”, merely as the much weaker “plausible”. Regards,

Actually, “degrees Kelvin” is antiquated terminology. Starting with the 13th General Conference on Weights and Measures in 1967-68, the term is simply “kelvin” or “kelvins.” Someone like you who is fit to judge who is abusive or ignorant basic science, maths, and statistics should already know such a detail.
Speaking of stupidity, how many pathetic errors has “Mann made maybe it’s a common theme among authors with a last name starting in “M”)? We can start with his weighting in MBH98, where he used the cosine of latitude instead of the square root thereof? Or his inability to put gridcell data in the proper half of the globe (South Carolina gridcell in MBH98 is actually that of Toulouse, France, New England’s is Toulouse, France, Bombay gridcell’s closest match is Philadelphia, PA, etc). Or claiming he didn’t calculate a statistic (“We didn’t calculate it. That would be silly and incorrect reasoning”) for which his code explicitly states that he did?
I’m not sure which spreadsheet issues you’re referring to, but maybe you should look back at the data McIntyre and McKitrick were initially provided by Mann.

Michael Jankowsk said: “Actually, “degrees Kelvin” is antiquated terminology. Starting with the 13th General Conference on Weights and Measures in 1967-68, the term is simply “kelvin” or “kelvins.”

George, I bet you have not read many science papers recently. “Degrees kelvin” is still the most used form of the terminology, no matter what the 13th General Conference on Weight and Measures has to say.

Did you have to Google “degrees kelvin” to find out what they were? How else would you ever bring up that nonsense about the term being antiquated? When discussing things with scientists it is best to use the terms they use and not appear to be an a**hole by being supercilious. Of course those spending too much time at Climate Fraudit are well known for behaving like a**holes.

All of the scientists, non-scientists, textbooks written by scientsits, etc, during my educational life used “kelvins” as normal/proper. A few explicitly stated that “degrees Kelvin” was improper. I used wikipedia to bring up the “13th General Conference…” fact because it’s a detail I never made a point of remembering. But I thought I should be thorough in posting, so I included it.
My name isn’t “George,” not that you care. Nor did you bother to inquire as to whether or not I am a scientist myself (the answer depends on who you ask…I say technically no, but many others say those in my field are) - you just appear to assume that I’m not. And your implication that I’d have to look up what “degrees Kelvin” are…that’s tremendously insulting to anyone who has even had basic high school chemistry and an absolutely pathetic assumption for someone like you to make. You should know better. Instead of complaining about others being a**holes, take a look in the mirror.

Ian,
You’re the one flat-out lying. Or are you really going to dispute I lied about “degrees Kelvin” vs kelvins? You’re going to contest that my past teachers, textbooks, Wikipedia, etc, are all wrong? Anyone here can look it up for themselves.
All you can do is reduce yourself to name-calling and broad criticisms with no support?
Everyone makes mistakes. Just admit you made errors in basic science and judgement, move on a little wiser and a little less of an a**hole, and do a little better next time…rather than remain ignorant and act like an even bigger a**hole. Your levels of delusion and hypocrisy are astounding.

Many scientists still use the term “degrees Kelvin”. You are using the same tactics as your friends at Climate Fraudit. Rather than do some original research and prove someone wrong you just go through their work to find any minute or controversial thing in it and shout out in your high pitched voice “LOOKTHEYAREWRONG”. That is not science, that is childish in the extreme. If you people believe that you are right then do the real science and prove it. Otherwise you will be treated with the disrespect that you deserve.

I don’t care if “many scientists still use the term ‘degrees Kelvin.’” It’s still been improper for 40 yrs (you’re a kelvins denialist - you belong with Creationists and Holocaust denialists, LOL!). I haven’t done anything to suggest your improper use of terminology means “LOOKTHEYAREWRONG” about anything else. I was simply making a point that someone should reconsider getting on his high horse making claims that people don’t know basic science, math, and stats within a few sentences of making a basic science error himself (and furthermore, shouldn’t complain about other folks being a**holes when he is being one himself). I also pointed out that Mann made any number of stupid errors in MBH98 and that everyone makes mistakes. For some reason, mistakes only reflect stupidity, ignorance, dishonesty, etc, when they are done by people you disapprove of. I am not sure what this “you people” crap is all about, or why I somehow “deserve” to “be treated with disrespect” just because I mentioned some errors.

Anyone who tries to laugh off the problems being encounterd all over the globe by AGW deserves all the disrespect that can be thrown their way. You people are so arrogant, greedy and narcissist.

By the way I never said you were a liar. You people always seem to have as many problems with the English language as you do with science.

By the way “you people” refers to all of you who disregard scientific facts and cause confusion among the general population as to the truth about AGW. I have yet to see one of you put forward a genuine piece of research that in anyway conflicts with the scientific consensus.

Where did I “laugh off” anything other than your pathetic denialism about kelvins? As for now denying that you said I was a liar…you said my correction on you calling me “George” was “the first thing I said that was true.” The implication is obvious, therefore, that you were claiming that all of my previous statements were all falsehoods. So that was the first time you said I was a liar. The second time was a few lines later when you said, “Lies, dishonesty and distortions by people like you are anathema to me.” Now how could you put me in the group of people which “lies” if you are not saying I’m a liar? As far as “you people” go, can you point on one place here where I have “disregarded scientific facts” or “caused confusion?” In fact, I tried to clarify the kelvins issue for you and anyone else you may have misled about your claims of “degrees Kelvin.” Are you really this illogical, or are you simply insane?

Dear Mr. Forrester, go ahead give me a single example on this page of my “poor science skills.” Keep in mind that I was the one who pointed-out you were living in the hippie 60s with your “degrees Kelvin” terminology (LSD flashback, perhaps?). It’s worthless debating reading comprehension skills because I’m not sure you have them yourself - either that, or you must be totally devoid of logic. What I find most remarkable of all is that you actually signed your name to these posts. Have you no shame? Is this all you have - grammar school level insults and subject changes when you’re caught with your hand in the cookie jar? What do you do when you make mistakes in your real life (if you have one) - run crying to your mommy?

You had proven that you had nothing to offer long ago. I’ve got to hand that to you - that’s one thing you did efficiently and quickly. When the day is done, you can really hang your hat on that one. I can’t say the same for myself. I’ve simply wasted time trying to make a point to a fool whose greatest intellectual capability seems to be the power to spell his name (at least, I hope it’s his) consistently in each of his posts. He can’t even answer a simple direct question to back up an assertion of his. All he can do is childishly run away from the question and respond with slanderous remarks. Maybe he’s going to give me another one of those “many scientists do it” excuses to try and justify his behavior (and in this case, he would certainly be right, but that doesn’t make it an excusable course of action).

You are completely wrong when you say that “degrees” Kelvin is banned from use. It is only used if the forum requires the strict use of SI units. I haven’t read all the fine print on the Desmog Blog but I have yet to see any comment requiring all posters to only use SI units. I will agree with you that some journals will only accept SI units but it is still in general use by both scientists and non-scientists.

By the way, I could tell from your first posts that you were not a scientist. I’d put you down as an engineer.

I still use the term “hundredweight” when thinking about coal delivery and “stones” when looking at a bag of potatoes. I guess that makes me really “antiquated”.

Ian, I never said it was “banned from use.” It’s not a swastika. I also never denied some folks still use it - “degrees centigrade” appears in spoken word from time-to-time, and it was replaced by “degrees Celsius” in 1948. It’s just technically been inappropriate for 40 yrs. I am sure that if a noted skeptic used the term “degrees Kelvin,” someone would jump on him and use it as an attack on “basic science knowledge.” But thank you for a somewhat reasonable post this time. FWIW, many people consider engineers, doctors, etc, to be scientists, but that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms :)

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

Keep In Touch

In Part II of our intimate interview with Professor Michael Mann he tells of the exact moment he fully acknowledged humans were driving climate change – and how his conversion was thanks to the invention of the colour printer. Read Part I here. The interview forms part of our Epic History of climate denial.

Michael Mann, the scientist behind the climate change hockey stick graph, began his PhD at the...